I haven't been the largest proponent for changing the older Civs' Unique Abilities, but we have gotten word of changes on the way. So here's a question: in Gods & Kings, if you had the opportunity to change one of the existing Civs' abilities, which one would you change and why?

[Edit - as I was creating the poll, I remembered that, by the changes in the game coming, Sonhai's UA must be updated, lest they have no UA at all. Rather than remove Songhai as a choice for those who'd completely change Songhai's UA or rendering the poll moot, assume Songhai is already getting a boost to embarked defense in Gods & Kings.]

janboruta

Mar 20, 2012, 02:42 PM

England's bonus spy and a possible change to the Ottomans (though, if played right, it was already powerful) in terms of most anticipated. I don't have special wishes about other UAs.

I wonder with what idea the devs will come up for Songhai.

apocalypse105

Mar 20, 2012, 03:11 PM

ottomans allready powerfull ? No its the must useless unique ability you rarely use it ..

I would ike to see a conquest related unique ability for the ottomans

Because they have 2 unique units for the offencive

Thats what bothers me with the ottomans there unique ability doesn't really work together ith their units.

And ottomans had a strong navy but they wheren't know for it they where rather know for there artillery cannons (great bombards )

Gucumatz

Mar 20, 2012, 03:13 PM

I voted Mongolia because I know people will forget them otherwise. With the Huns coming out I would like to have their UA made more distinct and give it a further purpose.

The Ottomans will get a revamp I bet and England is already confirmed to getting a revamp.

The Garibaldi

Mar 20, 2012, 04:21 PM

Why must the Songhai's UA change? What current aspect of it will conflict with G&K?

SalemSage

Mar 20, 2012, 04:30 PM

Part of Songhai's UA is the fact that embarked units can defend. If all embarked units can defend themselves as well as Songhai, then Songhai has just lost half of their UA.

Personally I think the extra spy for England will do wonders for them. I can see them becoming incredibly powerful with this, if they're keeping their +2 movement for naval units too, given that naval units are becoming much more important in this expansion. I really think England will become one of the best civs in the game with these changes. Can't wait to play them.

Mariner91

Mar 20, 2012, 05:53 PM

Rome's 25% 'savings' for buildings already in the Capital.

Usefulness is somewhat questionable when you're also building wonders in your capital (and it's usually the best 'equipped' to do so). Below prince, I was able to circumvent this by Buying buildings in the capital, but not so easy on Prince.

P.S. Not part of the poll but Rome's UUs kinda iffy too due to HIGH dependence on Iron (I.e. No Iron, no UU!).

Tabarnak

Mar 20, 2012, 07:56 PM

First to vote India.

Underpowered civ. Wide>Tall, mechanism behind India is underpowered for humans. Especially for multiplayer. The opposite for the AI with their mega happiness bonuses.

For example, they should introduce a lower bucket for food growth instead. Devs will probably fix the ''courthouse bug'' making their UA even less powerful.

GenjiKhan

Mar 20, 2012, 08:00 PM

The civs,which there should be some kind of change,IMO,are:

Siam: Their UA will include Religious(50% more faith) and Mercantile city states(50% more happiness) . But,there's a chance that the happiness bonus turns out to be very overpowered(if so,Greece might get this bonus instead) .

Arabia: Their UA might get a boost with the addiction of religion,like +1 :religion: for each trade route;

Ottomans,I'm pretty sure their UA will be extended to meele ships as well .

First to vote India.
Underpowered civ. Wide>Tall, mechanism behind India is underpowered for humans. Especially for multiplayer. The opposite for the AI with their mega happiness bonuses.

Considering the historic of patchs,there's a great chance that India will receive the same UA they have in Unofficial Patch and Vanilla Enhanced mod (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=385737)

Stormbolt

Mar 20, 2012, 08:40 PM

England is getting an extra spy, and longbowmen will be infinitely more useful since ranged units go into the industrial and modern area. They'll end up being one of the most powerful civs in the game, calling it now.

bonafide11

Mar 20, 2012, 09:08 PM

Siam: Their UA will include Religious(50% more faith) and Mercantile city states(50% more happiness) . But,there's a chance that the happiness bonus turns out to be very overpowered(if so,Greece might get this bonus instead) .

I just don't see this. Siam and Greece are already very powerful civilizations as it is, they don't need an extra bonus. Instead, their bonuses could be applied to work with new civilizations so the new ones have a religious & mercantile city-state advantage.

Babri

Mar 21, 2012, 03:17 AM

England is getting an extra spy, and longbowmen will be infinitely more useful since ranged units go into the industrial and modern area. They'll end up being one of the most powerful civs in the game, calling it now.
Keep in mind that ranged units would become less OP as melee units would be able to withstand attacks long enough to get close to them. Still lbows will be great units but they might need some pikes/swords to protect them.

comatosedragon

Mar 21, 2012, 03:54 AM

Well, since I can only vote for one, I chose India. It just seems a little unfair that they are the only civ to receive a penalty with their UA. I'm sure the developers could come up with something better. Especially now that we have religion again.

Rex_Mundi

Mar 21, 2012, 04:01 AM

I voted Denmark, now that they introduce mele ships that can raid cities, it would be an obvious chance to add character and uniqueness.

Not that I consider the current abbility underpowered, it could be a modification to the current pillage abbility of mele units.

marioflag

Mar 21, 2012, 04:26 AM

Songhai needs in my opinion a complete overhaul of their UA. I don't understand why a civilization which inhabited mostly desert areas and wasn't known for its maritime prowess should get a bonus to defense to embarked units.

apocalypse105

Mar 21, 2012, 04:42 AM

Why did somebody voted for the american's manifest destiny?

The extra sight is verry powerfull throughought the game from early swordsman seeing archers to infantry seeing targets to bombard with artillery and bombers

The purchasing is a extra bonus handy if you need the resource but isn't in you're culture grasp

MARDUK80

Mar 21, 2012, 05:15 AM

The UAs that I expect to get revamped:

1) England (already confirmed, so didn't vote it)
2) Ottomans (I hate Barbary Corsairs, and would hope to see it completely changed)
3) India (It is a different kind of UA, but they could some minor update to improve it a little bit)
4) Mongolia (Definitely deserves to get a stronger UA. Perhaps change the increased city state attack to apply every City, not just states)
5) Germany (Ok but... perhaps if Barbs are made stronger in G&K this UA would shine a bit more)
6) America (It isn't that bad, but with all these improvements/new things coming in the expansion it could be different/better)
7) Arabia (not bad, but could use a boost - Faith from Oasis tiles?)
8) Russia (Perhaps add some Espionage bonus on top of it)
9) Songhai (Weak UA, I think it will be changed undoubtedly)

EDIT: 10) Polynesia (now that I think of it, the Polynesian UI could use a slight boost. Not much, but a small adjust)

Voted for Mongolia. Just because, out of these Civs, I want to play more with them.

SammyKhalifa

Mar 21, 2012, 06:10 AM

Part of Songhai's UA is the fact that embarked units can defend. If all embarked units can defend themselves as well as Songhai, then Songhai has just lost half of their UA.

Personally I think the extra spy for England will do wonders for them. I can see them becoming incredibly powerful with this, if they're keeping their +2 movement for naval units too, given that naval units are becoming much more important in this expansion. I really think England will become one of the best civs in the game with these changes. Can't wait to play them.

Seems like the Songhai are still really strong regardless.

Rex_Mundi

Mar 21, 2012, 06:13 AM

Voted for Mongolia. Just because, out of these Civs, I want to play more with them.

In one of the articles they mentioned that you can bully city states, move your army close and demand tribute.
If Mongolia is 30% more threatening then that could be usefull.

MARDUK80

Mar 21, 2012, 06:16 AM

Ah, forgot about that. Very true. Looking forward for it :)

When I said Songhai had weak UA, that was also based on the G&K info about defensive embarkation promotion becoming universal.

SammyKhalifa

Mar 21, 2012, 06:21 AM

Ah, forgot about that. Very true. Looking forward for it :)

When I said Songhai had weak UA, that was also based on the G&K info about defensive embarkation promotion becoming universal.

Nah, I agree that the ABILIITY isn't (won't be) that hot, but I think their building and unit (and the big cash from killing camps) make up for it. I think they can just lose part of their UA and not blink.

Alk3Crimson

Mar 21, 2012, 08:11 AM

I voted for America, not because their UA is bad or weak in any way, but just because it feels "boring" compared to a lot of other UAs. I'm not sure what I would change it to.

bcaiko

Mar 21, 2012, 09:15 AM

In one of the articles they mentioned that you can bully city states, move your army close and demand tribute.
If Mongolia is 30% more threatening then that could be usefull.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. What fun would that be! Fits perfectly with the Mongols.

Alk3Crimson

Mar 21, 2012, 09:21 AM

Nah, I agree that the ABILIITY isn't (won't be) that hot, but I think their building and unit (and the big cash from killing camps) make up for it. I think they can just lose part of their UA and not blink.

I don't think they will just completely remove a portion of their UA and call it a day. At the very least I'd think +movement or combat strength to embarked units.

Louis XXIV

Mar 21, 2012, 09:25 AM

I agree wholeheartedly with this. What fun would that be! Fits perfectly with the Mongols.

Would be nice. However, I don't think every ability needs to conform to new features. Rather, I think the important question is if changes to the game has weakened the ability.

Songhai is the perfect example because now every civ has defensive embarkation. But I'd also argue England got undercut because the Danes ended up getting a movement bonus for embarked units.

On the other hand, no one is directly stealing part of the Mongol ability.

bcaiko

Mar 21, 2012, 09:44 AM

Would be nice. However, I don't think every ability needs to conform to new features. Rather, I think the important question is if changes to the game has weakened the ability.

Songhai is the perfect example because now every civ has defensive embarkation. But I'd also argue England got undercut because the Danes ended up getting a movement bonus for embarked units.

On the other hand, no one is directly stealing part of the Mongol ability.

I generally agree with you. I don't think we need to overhaul a bunch of the existing UAs. Just saying if this change was made, it would be fun. :)

Louis XXIV

Mar 21, 2012, 09:49 AM

Yeah, but sometimes the most logical civs to add to would be the rich getting richer. For example, Siam should probably get even more faith from religious city-states.

shaglio

Mar 21, 2012, 11:05 AM

I don't think they will just completely remove a portion of their UA and call it a day. At the very least I'd think +movement or combat strength to embarked units.

Or maybe they'll get a defensive bonus for embarked units. I'm not sure how exactly the embarked defense will work - will a unit get it's full strength when embarked or only a percentage (I never really paid attention while playing with the Songhai)? If, hypothetically, a normal embarked unit will get 75% of it's strength (so a 20 strength unit will have a 15 strength when embarked), then perhaps the Songhai will get 100%.

EDIT: In hindsight, I think that's what you meant by "combat strength to embarked units."

Mark the Bold

Mar 21, 2012, 01:37 PM

Here's my opinion of what America should get for their UA, as I do think it needs a boost:

I think America should keep their current UA, but also get a, say -10% to -20% cost to upgrade obsolete military units. The exact percentage is flexible.

My reason?

With the exception of very recent history, America never entered a war with the best military technology but almost always ended the war with it. I.e., Union Forces in civil war, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc.

Unlike virtually all the western / asian militaries, America has never stubbornly clung to obsolete technology for their military out of vanities of honor, tradition, etc. etc.

OR another option would be:

Cities with or (without ?) a factory gain a +10% to 25% production increase in military or naval units DURING warfare with a another Civ (not a city state).

A historian once wrote, that America's greatest contribution to WWII was a factory in Michigan that produced a fully operational B17 every hour, 24 hours a day. In brief, once mobilized for war, American economy can produce military machines faster than any army on the planet can destroy them.

I know this sounds like a "rah-rah- go-America", but I believe that either of these two UA's would not be too OP'd and more in line with their historical strengths than +1 sight or tile buying.

moysturfurmer

Mar 21, 2012, 01:52 PM

Here's my opinion of what America should get for their UA, as I do think it needs a boost:

I think America should keep their current UA, but also get a, say -10% to -20% cost to upgrade obsolete military units. The exact percentage is flexible.

My reason?

With the exception of very recent history, America never entered a war with the best military technology but almost always ended the war with it. I.e., Union Forces in civil war, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc.

Unlike virtually all the western / asian militaries, America has never stubbornly clung to obsolete technology for their military out of vanities of honor, tradition, etc. etc.

OR another option would be:

Cities with or (without ?) a factory gain a +10% to 25% production increase in military or naval units DURING warfare with a another Civ (not a city state).

A historian once wrote, that America's greatest contribution to WWII was a factory in Michigan that produced a fully operational B17 every hour, 24 hours a day. In brief, once mobilized for war, American economy can produce military machines faster than any army on the planet can destroy them.

I know this sounds like a "rah-rah- go-America", but I believe that either of these two UA's would not be too OP'd and more in line with their historical strengths than +1 sight or tile buying.

That makes it a good UA, sure, but it changes America from an expansion-focused civ to another war-focused civ, and there's already too many of those.

That makes it a good UA, sure, but it changes America from an expansion-focused civ to another war-focused civ, and there's already too many of those.

Well I guess I play too much multiplayer where only the civs with military strengths survive past turn 100 so I am biased. +1 sight on MP map = joke. i.e., Hey guys at least I can see the 30 Mohawk warriors one turn before y'all can.

Mango's is a good one, but coupled with Liberty SP's it might make them broken with a > Emperor difficulty AI. LoL, a 2-turn settler construction rate +500 happiness bonus = runaway AI on every map.

How about this for non-military UA? (+1 sight for units. +1 movement for settlers and workers. 5 combat strength for settlers (same as scout). Culture tile spreads +5-10% instead of purchase bonus when Civ is happy. +5% City Growth rate when Civ is happy.)

None of these are overly powerful, but would certainly promote an expansionist game style.

Tabarnak

Mar 21, 2012, 04:19 PM

5 combat strength for settlers (same as scout).

Why not? I prefer workers though. They have a pick and a rake in their hands after all. These can hurt!

GenjiKhan

Mar 21, 2012, 09:17 PM

Here's my opinion of what America should get for their UA, as I do think it needs a boost:

I think America should keep their current UA, but also get a, say -10% to -20% cost to upgrade obsolete military units. The exact percentage is flexible.

My reason?

With the exception of very recent history, America never entered a war with the best military technology but almost always ended the war with it. I.e., Union Forces in civil war, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc.

Unlike virtually all the western / asian militaries, America has never stubbornly clung to obsolete technology for their military out of vanities of honor, tradition, etc. etc.

OR another option would be:

Cities with or (without ?) a factory gain a +10% to 25% production increase in military or naval units DURING warfare with a another Civ (not a city state).

A historian once wrote, that America's greatest contribution to WWII was a factory in Michigan that produced a fully operational B17 every hour, 24 hours a day. In brief, once mobilized for war, American economy can produce military machines faster than any army on the planet can destroy them.

I know this sounds like a "rah-rah- go-America", but I believe that either of these two UA's would not be too OP'd and more in line with their historical strengths than +1 sight or tile buying.

The problem with that is that they're very overpowering,because it doesn't reward a player who tries to develop their cities before going war . And the second UA could be easily abused,if you dow with a civ that is so far away from you that you'll never see their troops for entire eras or dow a civ that has a army so puny that'll never be a threat to you .

With Collective Rule,it'll make USA too overpowered and it's historic inaccurrate,because Western Expansion was mainly drove by the Europians immigrants,not by those who already lived in Eastern USA .

How about this for non-military UA? (+1 sight for units. +1 movement for settlers and workers. 5 combat strength for settlers (same as scout). Culture tile spreads +5-10% instead of purchase bonus when Civ is happy. +5% City Growth rate when Civ is happy.)

None of these are overly powerful, but would certainly promote an expansionist game style.

Early advantages are more powerful than late advantages,so that's the reason why these boost are overpowered .
.
.
.
.
.
If there's really a need to boost the USA UA,I'd say they could receive a :c5culture: discount of 50% to expand tiles,along with the :c5gold: discount .

bonafide11

Mar 21, 2012, 09:38 PM

Why are we changing UAs now just for the sake of changing them? There's nothing wrong with the US as it is. Firaxis needs to release more details about the game before CFC ends up inventing an entire new game through all this speculation on the site.

BuilderFTW

Mar 21, 2012, 09:46 PM

Just throwing my two cents in from a multiplayer perspective. I am sure many people would disagree with some of them, its always interesting to see how the two games are different.

Germany's Pikeman to be improved so it isn't just a unit you spam. I would rather it did something interesting (currently all it is is deadly and boring).

France's culture to be toned down or moved back so it does not start right away (maybe moved back to start in classical)

Rome to be a little less strong (nerfing any part would help)

India's ability should be reworked, I just don't like the way India's ability is the only one with a penalty(which happens to make it VERY hard to play competitively)

Ottoman ability reworked as well-its currently useless on land maps

I would like to see the longbow nerfed, and other English abilities be useful on land

Louis XXIV

Mar 21, 2012, 10:23 PM

Why are we changing UAs now just for the sake of changing them? There's nothing wrong with the US as it is. Firaxis needs to release more details about the game before CFC ends up inventing an entire new game through all this speculation on the site.

Yeah, I suggested limiting it to abilities that have been cut into by other things. That list would be:

Out of these, England was weak to begin with, so it makes sense they've improved it. Arabs didn't have their UA cut into, but their UB, so I'm not sure how to handle it. Aztecs are probably fine. The ability to get a bonus against both barbarian and civ units is better and they still have a very strong UB and a good UU.

Songhai is the biggest question. I found their ability to be good, not great and their UU good but not great. They lost part of their UA, but the less important part. Ideally, they should boost the other part slightly, but that's it. Either way, their UB is very good so that should make up for it.

ETA: Not a UA change and possibly breaking my rule, but does anyone think the Babylonian Bowman will be changed from Archer to Composite Bow? That fits things more historically and it would be nice to have a UU for a new unit.

MARDUK80

Mar 22, 2012, 12:36 AM

Yeah, but sometimes the most logical civs to add to would be the rich getting richer. For example, Siam should probably get even more faith from religious city-states.

Siam has always been, in my games, too powerful. After G&K are they even more OP ?

Also Japan with Bushido - Units fight as though they were at full strength even when damaged - questions me a bit. With increased hit points from 10 to 100 there will be more damaged units and Bushido will shine even more...

ETA: Not a UA change and possibly breaking my rule, but does anyone think the Babylonian Bowman will be changed from Archer to Composite Bow? That fits things more historically and it would be nice to have a UU for a new unit.

Yeah, this is something I'd like to see happen as well. :)

aatami

Mar 22, 2012, 02:24 AM

Arabia should get buffed, thus voted the Arabs. (Arabs are weakened in G&K by the fact that the thing they are played for is also given to the dutch... But as an universal UA)

wobuffet

Mar 22, 2012, 03:51 AM

Arabia should get buffed, thus voted the Arabs. (Arabs are weakened in G&K by the fact that the thing they are played for is also given to the dutch... But as an universal UA)
Yeah, I was disappointed to see this. I guess the tulip thing is cool though. Arabia's Bazaar will be changed, I hope.

shaglio

Mar 22, 2012, 08:30 AM

With Collective Rule,it'll make USA too overpowered and it's historic inaccurrate,because Western Expansion was mainly drove by the Europians immigrants,not by those who already lived in Eastern USA.

Maybe this should be added to Manifest Destiny: When liberating another civ's Settler from barbarians, and choosing not to return it to the owner, the unit remains a Settler rather than converting to a Worker.

bonafide11

Mar 22, 2012, 09:52 AM

Maybe this should be added to Manifest Destiny: When liberating another civ's Settler from barbarians, and choosing not to return it to the owner, the unit remains a Settler rather than converting to a Worker.

That's such an unusual event that I can't imagine them adding that to the UA. It's not worth them typing it in and adding it to code for how rare it would happen. Again, let's not tinker with things just for the sake of it. Someone else on this forum once described an underwhelming UA change as a "punch in a pillow," and that's exactly what that is.

Alk3Crimson

Mar 22, 2012, 10:09 AM

That's such an unusual event that I can't imagine them adding that to the UA. It's not worth them typing it in and adding it to code for how rare it would happen. Again, let's not tinker with things just for the sake of it. Someone else on this forum once described an underwhelming UA change as a "punch in a pillow," and that's exactly what that is.

The rarity of the situation isn't really the problem. It's more the fact that it doesn't fit the theme of Manifest Destiny at all. Something like faster settler production or faster settler movement speed would be my choice. I also like the idea of settlers with combat strength. Symbolizes the hardiness of early Americans on the frontier. In-game it would translate to more bold expansion plans. It would promote exploring with your settler and founding a city in unknown territory, which fits the flavor of Manifest Destiny very well.

bonafide11

Mar 22, 2012, 10:17 AM

The rarity of the situation isn't really the problem. It's more the fact that it doesn't fit the theme of Manifest Destiny at all. Something like faster settler production or faster settler movement speed would be my choice. I also like the idea of settlers with combat strength. Symbolizes the hardiness of early Americans on the frontier. In-game it would translate to more bold expansion plans. It would promote exploring with your settler and founding a city in unknown territory, which fits the flavor of Manifest Destiny very well.

Well, it would fit Manifest Destiny in that it would, if it wasn't so freakin rare, allow for faster expansion, and the U.S. grew at a fast rate after it gained its independence. But the problem is it doesn't increase the U.S.'s expansion since you may capture a rival AI's settler from barbarians once every four games or so, which is really not worth them adding something to the UA for that unusual of an event.

Again, there is nothing wrong with the U.S. as it is. Why are we changing things just for the sake of changing them? The U.S. is a well balanced Civ with its UA actually fitting what it is supposed to and is probably one of the last civilizations that needs changing.

Alk3Crimson

Mar 22, 2012, 10:27 AM

Well, it would fit Manifest Destiny in that it would, if it wasn't so freakin rare, allow for faster expansion, and the U.S. grew at a fast rate after it gained its independence. But the problem is it doesn't increase the U.S.'s expansion since you may capture a rival AI's settler from barbarians once every four games or so, which is really not worth them adding something to the UA for that unusual of an event.

Again, there is nothing wrong with the U.S. as it is. Why are we changing things just for the sake of changing them? The U.S. is a well balanced Civ with its UA actually fitting what it is supposed to and is probably one of the last civilizations that needs changing.

We aren't changing anything, unless one of us is a dev and hasn't told anyone. We are simply speculating. What better time to revamp game content than in an expansion? Some would argue that the 10hp units were fine and didn't need to be changed, but they did anyway. If it ain't broke don't fix it, sure, but there's nothing wrong with wanting some innovation.

shaglio

Mar 22, 2012, 11:39 AM

Well, it would fit Manifest Destiny in that it would, if it wasn't so freakin rare, allow for faster expansion, and the U.S. grew at a fast rate after it gained its independence. But the problem is it doesn't increase the U.S.'s expansion since you may capture a rival AI's settler from barbarians once every four games or so, which is really not worth them adding something to the UA for that unusual of an event.

Again, there is nothing wrong with the U.S. as it is. Why are we changing things just for the sake of changing them? The U.S. is a well balanced Civ with its UA actually fitting what it is supposed to and is probably one of the last civilizations that needs changing.

That's why I suggested it. Some people think the American UA is fine the way it is and others find it lackluster. I figured this was a rare enough occurance that it wouldn't drastically alter the entire UA, but when it did happen it would be a nice little perk. I also tried to tie it into the fact that, as previously mentioned, most of the people who settled the western US were European immigrants rather than existing US citizens.

Louis XXIV

Mar 22, 2012, 11:53 AM

I think the current ability mirrors Manifest Destiny quite well. It mirrors the pioneering spirit of exploring west and clearing land to work it. In the United States, land was cheap, so people would start working distant lands.

Cheap settlers wouldn't be a poor fit since that too would be territory acquisition rather than population growth.

shaglio

Mar 22, 2012, 12:27 PM

Another one that just popped into my head for an addition to Manifest Destiny is: a 50% chance that exploring an Ancient Ruin gives a Settler in addition to one of the other results. I really worded that poorly, but hopefully you know what I mean. I.E. you get 20 Culture and a 50% chance to get a Settler.

Drawmeus

Mar 22, 2012, 01:04 PM

I think the current ability mirrors Manifest Destiny quite well. It mirrors the pioneering spirit of exploring west and clearing land to work it. In the United States, land was cheap, so people would start working distant lands.

Cheap settlers wouldn't be a poor fit since that too would be territory acquisition rather than population growth.

I just think it's underpowered. It's a cool idea, but it just doesn't do enough. I wouldn't mind if they retained the UA but added to it a bit at all. It just needs... something.

It doesn't help that both UUs are late game, of course. It all adds up to a civ that's going to be way behind by the time that late game rolls around.

Louis XXIV

Mar 22, 2012, 01:14 PM

I think the extra sight is quite good in combat. The Musketeer is fun to play with as well.

Alk3Crimson

Mar 22, 2012, 01:23 PM

I think the extra sight is quite good in combat. The Musketeer is fun to play with as well.

I agree their current UA fits the title well, I just wish it had something a bit more unique. Just combat strength on settlers with a defensive bonus to barbs would be enough to make me happy. Just something to set them apart a little more.

The extra sight only becomes powerful once you get Artillery and the B17. Otherwise its just a convenience. Also, they are Minutemen.

SammyKhalifa

Mar 22, 2012, 01:26 PM

I think the extra sight is quite good in combat. The Musketeer is fun to play with as well.

I don't think you can appreciate how good the sight bonus is until you play part of a game as the US, then restart a different game as someone else. You feel like you can't see a thing. You don't get the goody huts as often or see the good settling spots. You need to build more scouts to cover the same territory, etc.

Louis XXIV

Mar 22, 2012, 01:42 PM

Also, they are Minutemen.

Yeah, I saw that I messed up. Minuteman, of course.

SammyKhalifa, I agree completely. Losing line of sight made me sad.

NotSure

Mar 22, 2012, 01:44 PM

Since the poll was personal preference I picked Germany, because I want a better Germany. If the poll asked which civilization needed a change to it's UA the most, I would have picked the Ottomans. Their UA is just awful.

This is a little off-topic, but does anyone else think that the Ottoman's, America and Germany would benefit more from the ability to upgrade pikes to musket men than from an improvement in their UA? Any civ that has to rely on pike spam or a unique musket unit is already going to be inferior to a civ that has a guaranteed good building, unit or ability. If you add a mediocre UA on top of that such as Barbary Corsairs, Manifest Destiny, or Furor Teutonicus then they become even more unappealing. Just my opinion... fell free to agree with me.;)

ShahJahanII

Mar 24, 2012, 06:17 AM

I think the Iroquois need a boost.
A UA as simple as theirs will get drowned out by all the new features, and it isn't that powerful now.

Louis XXIV

Mar 24, 2012, 08:10 AM

But they can build swordsmen without a resource cap.

GenjiKhan

Mar 24, 2012, 09:11 AM

Since the poll was personal preference I picked Germany, because I want a better Germany. If the poll asked which civilization needed a change to it's UA the most, I would have picked the Ottomans. Their UA is just awful.

This is a little off-topic, but does anyone else think that the Ottoman's, America and Germany would benefit more from the ability to upgrade pikes to musket men than from an improvement in their UA? Any civ that has to rely on pike spam or a unique musket unit is already going to be inferior to a civ that has a guaranteed good building, unit or ability. If you add a mediocre UA on top of that such as Barbary Corsairs, Manifest Destiny, or Furor Teutonicus then they become even more unappealing. Just my opinion... fell free to agree with me.;)

Personally,I'd like that they bring back(from Civ 4) the possibility to choose between 2 or 3 upgrades for obsolete units . In the case of Pikeman,this would allow to upgrade either to musketman or lancer(obviously with the loss of the bonus against mounted units) . And just like England,the Ottomans need a boost on their UA to be more valuable in sealess maps . Any guess about what kind of boost they might receive?

apocalypse105

Mar 24, 2012, 11:46 AM

Personally,I'd like that they bring back(from Civ 4) the possibility to choose between 2 or 3 upgrades for obsolete units . In the case of Pikeman,this would allow to upgrade either to musketman or lancer(obviously with the loss of the bonus against mounted units) . And just like England,the Ottomans need a boost on their UA to be more valuable in sealess maps . Any guess about what kind of boost they might receive?

A conquest oriented ability I don't see why they gave the ottomans a navy ability while they have 2 unqiue land units that get bonusses for beeing the offensive.
Janissary (offensive bonus 25%)
Lancer unit designed for atack

bhavv

Mar 30, 2012, 10:03 PM

I'm most interested in Englands changes. I already like their bonuses, but naval combat is too weak. The expansion is boosting naval combat a lot, plus giving the English an extra spy, so I'm looking forward to trying them out again and breaking away from typically playing Korea, Inca, Egypt or Babylon.

EddyMcK

Apr 01, 2012, 04:17 AM

Aztecs

It doesn't sound appealing at all unless you specifically want a culture vic